Should Bush, Rumsfeld & Cheney be Shot?

Should They Be Shot In A First Strike For Freedom?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 47 39.2%
  • No.

    Votes: 54 45.0%
  • What???

    Votes: 14 11.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 5 4.2%

  • Total voters
    120

Lancecastor

Lit's Most Beloved Poster
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
54,670
My mother, 71, suggested today that Bush, Rumsfeld & Cheney should be shot.

My mom has strong people reading skills; she can tell a liar by the way they walk, talk, dress and sit.

And she's Pro American, always has been.

She just thinks you've all been duped by greedy two faced oil & weapons barons who routinely sign execution warrants for Texans and others in jails around America and elsewhere.

Given that these guys have stripped your civil rights, profited from Osama & Saddam and are killing innocent Americans, Brits, Ozzies and Iraqis as we speak....and had Congress authorize the assassination of Saddam last year...should they be shot instead to save us all the misery they are inflicting on the world?

Discuss.
 
Remember, this is not a scientific Poll....but 67% so far think they should be gunned down.

Regime Change?
 
Lancecastor said:
Remember, this is not a scientific Poll....but 67% so far think they should be gunned down.

Regime Change?

Face change? So girls will like you and you might get laid by someone you're not related to?
 
Lancecastor said:
Remember, this is not a scientific Poll....but 67% so far think they should be gunned down.

Regime Change?

Think you need to recheck the stats......Earlier today on CNN 76% in favor of what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are doing!

Just thought you'd like to know!
 
I can read people. My answer is clearly no. Can your mother read you?
 
Lancecastor said:
Remember, this is not a scientific Poll....but 67% so far think they should be gunned down.

Regime Change?
Don't celebrate yet.
 
Just curious about this one.

America helped liberate france from the Nazis (Russia assisted them more). How is that any sorts of similar to helping us invade a nation (10times the bombs) that has not attacked us?
 
Before 9/11 most Americans saw Bush Jr for what he is; an alcoholic coke head cum born again born to wealth and set up by his daddy's pals to buy public office and power...an empty suit with a shady business record.

Some Saudis fly jets into office towers....18 months later you're invading a third rate little desert country everyone in the world says poses no threat to anyone outside its borders....and you're happy about doing it.

Are you all really that blind when someone wraps themselves in your flag?

Do you realize that's crazier than what the Palestinians do?

Curiously yours;

Lance
 
Now I know where you get your vile...

Hope you enjoy your visit from the Secret Service..
 
Lancecastor said:
...and you're happy about doing it.


I'm not happy about doing it Lance, I am just reading CNN report of 2 British helicopters that collided over the Persian Gulf. I view it as necessary, but violent and tragic at the same time.
 
70/30 said:
Just curious about this one.

America helped liberate france from the Nazis (Russia assisted them more). How is that any sorts of similar to helping us invade a nation (10times the bombs) that has not attacked us?
Check you're history, I think you opened the wrong book!

And Lance, just what have you done for YOU'RE country?
 
America wasn't the primary player in WW1 or WW2. We didn't rush in to help either. GD, public schools.
 
Gunner Dailey said:
I view it as necessary

Necessary to disarm Iraq as per the UN resolutions?

Why didn't the US offer to put all 250,000 troops in UN uniforms to go dig up and destroy the WMD?
 
Zmey said:
Paying taxes isn't enough?

Zmey, as usual, you don't know what in the hell you're involved with. You come to a battle of wits half-armed.

Now read the quote in my sig line. You should live by that phrase.

So quit showing your ignorance and go back to hoping your defection can be reversed.
 
F.Y.I.

According to this law -- 18 USC Sec. 871 -- which reads, in part:

"...Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Every year, the Secret Service investigates over 1,500 reported or discovered threats against the President. While most people who threaten the President are just venting, even joking, all reported threats are taken very seriously and those who make them are in for, at least, a tough time.

Screaming obscenities in the President's face, sending threatening mail to the White House, or publicly stating a desire to see the President harmed are not only acts of shameful disrespect, they should always be considered threats under the law.
 
70/30 said:
America wasn't the primary player in WW1 or WW2. We didn't rush in to help either. GD, public schools.

For WW1, you're correct. American forces did fight in the war, but their presence didn't win the war. Although Sgt York helped. :)

But for WW2, the US certainly was a major player, even before entering the war. We, along with Canada, armed the UK. Once we did enter the war, it was the US's economic might that turned the tide of the war. That doesn't belittle the effort that all Allies played in the war. Hell, more Polish soldiers died in the Ardennes and on the beaches of Normandy than French. It was a united effort.
 
Re: F.Y.I.

Lost Cause said:
According to this law -- 18 USC Sec. 871 -- which reads, in part:

"...Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Every year, the Secret Service investigates over 1,500 reported or discovered threats against the President. While most people who threaten the President are just venting, even joking, all reported threats are taken very seriously and those who make them are in for, at least, a tough time.

Screaming obscenities in the President's face, sending threatening mail to the White House, or publicly stating a desire to see the President harmed are not only acts of shameful disrespect, they should always be considered threats under the law.

Yeah, thanks.

I ask you....do you think Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney should be shot?
 
Back
Top